North Korea: 2012-2016

[Dayuhan]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

[Bob's World]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

Concur.

While I believe that containment needs to be retired as the centerpiece to US foreign policy, it certainly has a place for specific situations that are real, containable and tied to US national interests. North Korea is a containable problem.

As to deterrence, that needs to focus on the few big things we absolutely will not stand for (major missile attacks on Japan, Invasion of South Korea, etc) and can actually do something about. Small things can and will happen and are not a failure of deterrence. Internal actions will occur that we do not like but that are outside of any duty or right of ours to influence. Overreacting in response to the small things within the larger red lines is not particularly productive; nor is the implementation of measures that punish the populace while giving the government a great IO opportunity to shift blame for all their failures onto implementer of those measures.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

[Ron Humphrey]

Concur.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

Would require that particular meeting also laying exact what if's as to response to anything outside those "red lines"

Who and how?

And in the end will it still leave incidents such as this outside of the "defined" parameters?